Emperor Change suggestion

Didgerion

Crown wrote: »

Didgerion wrote: »

A better Idea is to have the following mechanism: Any of the top 10 players should be able to challenge the 1st player in a duel. If the top1 player looses the duel then he looses 100k AP and the winner get's 50k AP.
If the top1 player wins the fight then he gets 25K AP and the looser looses 50k AP. There should be some time-outs involved....like if the 1st place player received a challenge request then he has to start the fight in the next 1h otherwise it is considered a loss but I'm sure ZOS can do something more creative here. This way if a player is good then he has a great chance to catch up the emperor. The lower ranked players has a great chance to catch up the top 10 players while top10s are dueling each other.

What about players who are not great duelists? I've 1v1'ed and won vs quite a few opposing emperors (who had their emperor powers) - not because I'm a better overall player, just because that emperor was a group oriented player and/or not a duellist. I happen to LOVE having a templar healer as emperor, though in that particular build, the templar healer will not have the setup (gear / skills / champion points) to win duels.

I'll point out something that @Sypher said last month - the key to winning a duel is having a build that counters your opponent. It doesn't matter if you're a better player, 9 times out of 10 the player with the counter will win.

--Example: I am not very good on my DK yet. I have 14 days /played most of which was spent leveling, getting skyshards, getting lorebooks, getting undaunted up to 9, and running dungeons for skill points. I'm running stamina with shieldbreaker. Just to see what would happen I duelled a magicka sorc who is possibly one of the better duellists in the game. I won. Not because of skill, but because I had a bow that spammed light attacks, wings to reflect every time he cast a frags, and vigor to heal myself. If it was a game of skill, he would have ROFLStomped me.

Once again we have someone who wants the game to conform to their 1v1 desires. ESO PvP is a group game. If you want to duel, go find a duelling group, but to take the map, to flip emperor keeps, and to defeat all the opposing faction groups out there, you need a group. Once the next patch hits and solo players will be making DOUBLE the AP per kill, it's very possible that we'll see more of them on top of the leader boards. We'll see if their factions decide to push to crown them - I'm honestly not sure what the opinions of the masses will be on that.

Also, when will these duels take place if there's fighting on the map? Group players will prioritize map objectives over duelling - so why would they take time away from what's important to them and to the success / win of the campaign to duel you?

The dueling can be done to be both tactical and non countering-friendly:

For example the players could have the ability to ban any skill on the opponent's bar prior the fight start that would make the other player to replace that ability....and each one is able to do up to 3 such ability bans. So the tactic starts right from the beginning of choosing the abilities.....you should choose powerful abilities but always leaving other abilities for backup in case some of them are getting banned....

The same thing should be done with the gear's passives....like each player could disable up to 2 gear passives.

And you exclude all countering the players has against you...so does your opponent too.

Then there might be added other strategical elements to the fight itself.

Crown

Didgerion wrote: »

The dueling can be done to be both tactical and non countering-friendly: For example the players could have the ability to ban any skill on the opponent's bar prior the fight start that would make the other player to replace that ability....and each one is able to do up to 3 such ability bans. So the tactic starts right from the beginning of choosing the abilities.....you should choose powerful abilities but always leaving other abilities for backup in case some of them are getting banned.... The same thing should be done with the gear's passives....like each player could disable up to 2 gear passives. And you exclude all countering the players has against you...so does your opponent too. Then there might be added other strategical elements to the fight itself.

So the whole PvP system should be rewritten from the way ESO works to support a 1v1 duelling system where you have control over what the other person can and can't do based on their builds, specs, gear, etc.

I'm sorry but that is the worst idea I've ever read on these forums - and they get pretty dumb / toxic at times. Anything you can conceivable think of that you suggest to ZOS to have them seriously consider has to make sense for the majority of the player base, and be something that they can implement without completely changing how the game works.

ESO is a game that involves LOTS OF PEOPLE fighting. Duelling for emperor where you can ban abilities and passives dynamically pretty much breaks the game. If that's what you want, go find a game that is intended for solo play with no group objectives.

Love Wizard

How is farming AP a problem, and the way it is now it's not a problem either. Be dedicated enough, kill enough people and you'll have your chance to become an Emperor aswell. Sure as hell it's hard to outfarm a full raid or something like that, but I don't see this being the solution to the problem.

Didgerion

Crown wrote: »

Didgerion wrote: »

The dueling can be done to be both tactical and non countering-friendly: For example the players could have the ability to ban any skill on the opponent's bar prior the fight start that would make the other player to replace that ability....and each one is able to do up to 3 such ability bans. So the tactic starts right from the beginning of choosing the abilities.....you should choose powerful abilities but always leaving other abilities for backup in case some of them are getting banned.... The same thing should be done with the gear's passives....like each player could disable up to 2 gear passives. And you exclude all countering the players has against you...so does your opponent too. Then there might be added other strategical elements to the fight itself.

So the whole PvP system should be rewritten from the way ESO works to support a 1v1 duelling system where you have control over what the other person can and can't do based on their builds, specs, gear, etc.

I'm sorry but that is the worst idea I've ever read on these forums - and they get pretty dumb / toxic at times. Anything you can conceivable think of that you suggest to ZOS to have them seriously consider has to make sense for the majority of the player base, and be something that they can implement without completely changing how the game works.

ESO is a game that involves LOTS OF PEOPLE fighting. Duelling for emperor where you can ban abilities and passives dynamically pretty much breaks the game. If that's what you want, go find a game that is intended for solo play with no group objectives.

Worst idea...well that's an achievement too.

And It is not dueling for emperorship, it just brings dueling into equation.
You can still become an emperor by loosing all the duels. The numbers I brought here are just an example.
Balance those numbers and timers such way that the strategy (aka AP farming) contribute 95% towards the emperorship while dueling just 5%.

And yeah your approach "change nothing in ESO just move on if you don't like it".....that's even worse then the worst idea.

ESO is a great game...and it can become even better. And the worst ideas can lead to the best ideas during debates.

Crown

I'm not saying that duelling is a bad idea, but duelling for emperor definitely is.

The emperor *should* be working for what's best for the faction, pushing the map, taking scrolls, making campaign points for the faction.

When's the last time you saw a duellist do any of that?

What do duelling skills have to do with winning campaigns?

If you want to duel, go have fun (Gina mentioned duelling arenas a few times in the past six months) - but you do nothing for the good of your alliance.

Zavus

@Crown true say on all of your replies.

-Meffy

Crown

Also note that after the next patch, duelling will net you approximately 2,000 AP per win.

If you're a good duellist and that's all you do, then you can easily make the same AP as mid sized groups.

Didgerion

Crown wrote: »

I'm not saying that duelling is a bad idea, but duelling for emperor definitely is.

The emperor *should* be working for what's best for the faction, pushing the map, taking scrolls, making campaign points for the faction.

When's the last time you saw a duellist do any of that?

What do duelling skills have to do with winning campaigns?

If you want to duel, go have fun (Gina mentioned duelling arenas a few times in the past six months) - but you do nothing for the good of your alliance.

Ok here is the scenario:
Lets say the current emperor is bad and the only thing he does is farming a resource next to a keep to maintain his #1 position.
Maybe the #2 player is the true emperor who runs after scrolls who defends the key keeps but he is #2 and he is concentrated on war not on AP farming. How do you suppose to dethrone #1 in this case?

And here where the true emperor #2 can challenge nr #1 to a duel.....if #2 is a bad duelist...then he can ask #3-#10 to help to dethrone #1.

WRX

Just kill more bad guys.

Didgerion

WRX wrote: »

Just kill more bad guys.

Yeah that literally means - leave you emperor-ship strategies and focus on farming.

IxSTALKERxI

Crown wrote: »

As someone who has been Emperor 40 something times

How many different campaign cycles has it been now? I've personally never liked counting the ones where you get repeatedly crowned in the same campaign cycle as you can get crowned in your sleep etc, and I mean you could nightcap it every night in a campaign only to lose it every prime time haha. Idk it just looks bad that way imo.

I've only done 7 campaign cycles worth of successful emp pushes myself. It's also a lot easier to keep track of this way haha.

Cody

Didgerion wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Didgerion wrote: »

A better Idea is to have the following mechanism: Any of the top 10 players should be able to challenge the 1st player in a duel. If the top1 player looses the duel then he looses 100k AP and the winner get's 50k AP.
If the top1 player wins the fight then he gets 25K AP and the looser looses 50k AP. There should be some time-outs involved....like if the 1st place player received a challenge request then he has to start the fight in the next 1h otherwise it is considered a loss but I'm sure ZOS can do something more creative here. This way if a player is good then he has a great chance to catch up the emperor. The lower ranked players has a great chance to catch up the top 10 players while top10s are dueling each other.

What about players who are not great duelists? I've 1v1'ed and won vs quite a few opposing emperors (who had their emperor powers) - not because I'm a better overall player, just because that emperor was a group oriented player and/or not a duellist. I happen to LOVE having a templar healer as emperor, though in that particular build, the templar healer will not have the setup (gear / skills / champion points) to win duels.

I'll point out something that @Sypher said last month - the key to winning a duel is having a build that counters your opponent. It doesn't matter if you're a better player, 9 times out of 10 the player with the counter will win.

--Example: I am not very good on my DK yet. I have 14 days /played most of which was spent leveling, getting skyshards, getting lorebooks, getting undaunted up to 9, and running dungeons for skill points. I'm running stamina with shieldbreaker. Just to see what would happen I duelled a magicka sorc who is possibly one of the better duellists in the game. I won. Not because of skill, but because I had a bow that spammed light attacks, wings to reflect every time he cast a frags, and vigor to heal myself. If it was a game of skill, he would have ROFLStomped me.

Once again we have someone who wants the game to conform to their 1v1 desires. ESO PvP is a group game. If you want to duel, go find a duelling group, but to take the map, to flip emperor keeps, and to defeat all the opposing faction groups out there, you need a group. Once the next patch hits and solo players will be making DOUBLE the AP per kill, it's very possible that we'll see more of them on top of the leader boards. We'll see if their factions decide to push to crown them - I'm honestly not sure what the opinions of the masses will be on that.

Also, when will these duels take place if there's fighting on the map? Group players will prioritize map objectives over duelling - so why would they take time away from what's important to them and to the success / win of the campaign to duel you?

The dueling can be done to be both tactical and non countering-friendly:

For example the players could have the ability to ban any skill on the opponent's bar prior the fight start that would make the other player to replace that ability....and each one is able to do up to 3 such ability bans. So the tactic starts right from the beginning of choosing the abilities.....you should choose powerful abilities but always leaving other abilities for backup in case some of them are getting banned....

The same thing should be done with the gear's passives....like each player could disable up to 2 gear passives.

And you exclude all countering the players has against you...so does your opponent too.

Then there might be added other strategical elements to the fight itself.

"exclude all countering" then it becomes a boring match of who dies before spamming heals first, in which nightblades and sorcerers would be at a huge disadvantage. It would also require a lot of coding and the like, and ZOS should be focusing on improving on the lag infesting cyrodiil atm

driosketch

Crown wrote: »

I have yet to see a well reasoned argument why the Emperor system is bad. Most arguments are based on the fact that many people never get it and believe that they should.

@Crown

To start, the emp system breeds inbalance. To gain it, your faction needs to take a minimum of 4 enemy keeps, meaning neither of the other two factions have a home keep bonus. The reward for crowning emp is to make stronger the faction that least needs it because they are already dominating the map.

On a full campaign there is still ebb and flow. The emp's faction will now find themselves 2 against 1. This is how it is supposed to be, but on the state of today's servers, it inevitably finds the pop of all three factions in one place lagging out the game. Oh, and before you deflect this to a server issue, not an emp issue, I'm just getting started.

Now on a low pop server, where one faction goes a bar or two above the rest, these bonuses only ensure that the first faction to get them will now dominate the map to the point of crushing the motivation of the other 2 factions. This is called killing the campaign, and a dead campaign is abused for its buffs, and possibly emp trading. This has meant that PvP buffs have had to be dialed back 3 times, cross campaign, in PvE, and the former emp buff.

Now let's look at the emperor buffs on the player. While it's not solely the the buffs themselves, the way they combine with other things have made players stronger than possibly intended. This in turn has led to some fundamental, and often blanket changes to the game. Remember DK vampire emps wiping entire groups? One of the direct results is the change to dynamic Ult generation for everyone. Emp + high CP soloing Molag Bal in the sewers? CP cap. And so on. Maybe some of these would still need lesser tweaks, catch up system without a cap, but you add emp and it pushes it past the breaking point.

I guess you could say I haven't heard a good reason why the emp system was a good addition to this game at all.

(I'll list my ideas for a better more balanced system in another post.)

driosketch

Idea to replace The Emperor system, Alliance Hero.

The current emp passives, now the Hero Line, would be a temporary buff granted to the top player in Cyrodiil in each faction. Buff would last an hour, after which whoever is the strongest player, even if the the same player, gets the new buff. If they leave, the next player in line gets the buff. The Hero would also get a 50% AP gain debuff, (more on this later). Remnants of the old emp system, if your are Alliance Hero and your faction owns the 6 keeps, you get the achievement, costume, dye and title. No addition personal buffs, but your faction gets a slight multiplier to the normal keep bonuses, which is lost when you lose any of the 6 keeps. To qualify for hero status, you need to be homed to the campaign and in the top 50% This guards against players logging into a dead campaign for an easy achievement.

Pros over the current system.
-You always have a hero on your side, meaning a losing faction is never out of luck.
-You could have some epic fights Hero vs Hero.
-In a three way alliance war, where the hero goes adds a new layer of strategy.
-No more all in one place fights out of necessity.
-Elite players still have a sense of earning their bonus
-AP farming while hero would be discouraged, meaning they would stay focused on the war. (AP farmers could quickly log out to give up the Hero status if they want.)

Master_Kas

It's fine as it is. And I'm saying this even If I've never was emp

Epic seing a emp wrecking stuff even when I'm on the recieving end.